Yeah, I think it comes down to the fact that you're willing to give Gambit more leeway and I'm willing to give more to Steed. Though I'm still not clear on where you think Steed is being manipulative or more dedicated to the job in TNA than anyone else - except when he forgoes his position entirely and gives up government secrets in order to rescue Purdey. I'll admit that I'm a little overcritical of Gambit - I think you're also being overcritical of Steed.

Obsession is an example of both men being completely off the mark - and Purdey not helping things by not actually trying to explain even part of what's going. I do think that it's indicative that she starts off by addressing Steed, and that it's Steed that tries to help and understand what the deal is. Gambit just goes around posturing like a jealous lover (which he really has no right to do) - and then seems shocked when Purdey is angry with him for shooting the guy. Both men in that case interfere in her life to an extreme extent._________________"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Yeah, I think it comes down to the fact that you're willing to give Gambit more leeway and I'm willing to give more to Steed. Though I'm still not clear on where you think Steed is being manipulative or more dedicated to the job in TNA than anyone else - except when he forgoes his position entirely and gives up government secrets in order to rescue Purdey. I'll admit that I'm a little overcritical of Gambit - I think you're also being overcritical of Steed.

Obsession is an example of both men being completely off the mark - and Purdey not helping things by not actually trying to explain even part of what's going. I do think that it's indicative that she starts off by addressing Steed, and that it's Steed that tries to help and understand what the deal is. Gambit just goes around posturing like a jealous lover (which he really has no right to do) - and then seems shocked when Purdey is angry with him for shooting the guy. Both men in that case interfere in her life to an extreme extent.

I'm not overly-critical of Steed on the whole. The nature of this debate has tended to polarise things. But all told, it's rare that anything Gambit does that grates on me. There's very little post-Gale that Steed does that really annoys me, either, but there are a handful of instances in TNA, and those are in the episodes we've been discussing. I'll reiterate that these bothered me way back when I first watched the show, as I saw season 2 first, before I'd seen enough to develop any sort of Gambit bias, and was mainly watching for Steed. They're things that irk me when other characters in other shows have done them as well. So it's the actions I'm critical of, not just because Steed them.

Purdey could have saved everyone a lot of grief if she just was straight with everyone about it, I agree. And I agree absolutely that both Steed and Gambit care about her and want to help. Steed's perspective is absolutely correct given the right circumstances, but I don't think are on the mark in this particular instance. He doesn't know the exact circumstances are, so I'll give him that. But Steed (or anyone, for that matter) had no right to invite Doomer to the party to force her to "face up to him" without her consent. I know that he meant well, but it's out of line, especially given that he doesn't know the facts. If Gambit had done it, it would have been just as out of line. Gambit acts out of concern, too, I think, rather than jealousy, but his approach seems more hands-off and lets her know he's around if she needs him (and Doomer know that Purdey's got back-up if she needs it). Shooting Doomer no doubt has an extreme effect on Purdey, but Gambit's hand is forced there--Doomer would have killed her otherwise. Steed would have been just as justified to kill him in the same circumstances._________________Last Watched:Who Was That Man I Saw You With?

I'm sorry, I just keep getting the "Gambit does things out of selflessness and concern and Steed is just being a jerk" vibe in what you've said. Maybe that's what I sound like when I defend Steed - and I do dislike Gambit a lot more than you dislike Steed, regardless of time period. But I don't see the selflessness of Gambit's actions in these instances! He interferes fully as much as Steed does, and there's an edge of proprietary rights, calling himself a "close friend," (which more or less implies to Larry that he's a sexual rival). He can express concern, even defense, without claiming her, but he doesn't. It becomes, once more, about him and his defense of Purdey, not Purdey herself. So if Steed is out of line in inviting Doomer, Gambit is out of line in claiming Purdey. When he shoots Doomer, he spends most of his time trying to justify his actions rather than actually apologizing to or trying to help the woman he's just helped traumatize. Regardless of what Steed did or didn't do, Gambit seems to be forced to do things an awful lot.

Anyways, we don't have to carry on. It seems that Steed falls a lot in comparison to Gambit in this debate, and Gambit falls a lot in comparison to Steed. At least in the case of Obsession, I guess I don't see where Gambit is just being a lovely guy. [/i]_________________"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

I'm sorry, I just keep getting the "Gambit does things out of selflessness and concern and Steed is just being a jerk" vibe in what you've said. Maybe that's what I sound like when I defend Steed - and I do dislike Gambit a lot more than you dislike Steed, regardless of time period.

That is rather how it sounds, I'm afraid. But I don't hate Steed. It would be very hard to be a fan of this show if you did. I love all the characters on the show, some more than others, but I can't claim to hate any of them. That doesn't mean I don't criticise them, or the show, when it's justified, either. I'm not trying to run down Steed, and I certainly don't make a habit of it, but the nature of the debate means that every instance where he did irk me has come up via counterpoints, and we end up with these lopsided viewpoints.

Anyway, you don't like Gambit. I get it. That's fine. We all have our take on these things. I happen to like both Gambit and Steed. I don't want to run down Steed. I don't like watching Gambit get constantly run down, either. But I'm quite happy to leave this here._________________Last Watched:Who Was That Man I Saw You With?

Ok, I'm just trying to say that I don't just not like Gambit - I actually have reasons for not liking the guy. Sometimes maybe it's a bit too strong - but at the same time I can see the positive aspects of the character. I'm not trying to completely run him down - I just can't see him as this overwhelmingly positive character who's never at fault.

Anyways, it's always interesting that an episode or a set of episodes can provoke such different interpretations and reactions._________________"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Ok, I'm just trying to say that I don't just not like Gambit - I actually have reasons for not liking the guy. Sometimes maybe it's a bit too strong - but at the same time I can see the positive aspects of the character. It sometimes sounds like he's never at fault, though.

Anyways, it's always interesting that an episode or a set of episodes can provoke such different interpretations and reactions.

yes, indeed..whether it's this program, or Dr.Who, Live on Mars, Star Trek, etc..the essays and / or / interpretations are always interesting....

Ok, I'm just trying to say that I don't just not like Gambit - I actually have reasons for not liking the guy. Sometimes maybe it's a bit too strong - but at the same time I can see the positive aspects of the character. It sometimes sounds like he's never at fault, though.

Anyways, it's always interesting that an episode or a set of episodes can provoke such different interpretations and reactions.

And that's perfectly fine. I understand that. You are completely entitle to your opinion. And I'm very happy that you love the show and Steed. So do I!

But it's worth keeping in mind that less than a decade ago there was a lot of mudslinging aimed at Gambit, and Tara, and the movie, and TNA, and anyone who happened to like/enjoy any or all of the above. And it wasn't fun to witness or experience. So when it feels like things might be tilting that way, well, it makes me tired. This forum is more all-embracing of all aspects of the series than one of its predecessors was back in 2001, and I think that's a good thing._________________Last Watched:Who Was That Man I Saw You With?

Ok, I'm just trying to say that I don't just not like Gambit - I actually have reasons for not liking the guy. Sometimes maybe it's a bit too strong - but at the same time I can see the positive aspects of the character. It sometimes sounds like he's never at fault, though.

Anyways, it's always interesting that an episode or a set of episodes can provoke such different interpretations and reactions.

And that's perfectly fine. I understand that. You are completely entitle to your opinion. And I'm very happy that you love the show and Steed. So do I!

But it's worth keeping in mind that less than a decade ago there was a lot of mudslinging aimed at Gambit, and Tara, and the movie, and TNA, and anyone who happened to like/enjoy any or all of the above. And it wasn't fun to witness or experience. So when it feels like things might be tilting that way, well, it makes me tired. This forum is more all-embracing of all aspects of the series than one of its predecessors was back in 2001, and I think that's a good thing.

Ok, but do you also see that it can tilt back the other way? Sometimes in defending those characters it suddenly seems not OK to take exception to them or criticize them. So rather than being all-encompassing, it means that you either have to agree that those characters are great or you're wrong and not permitted an opinion.

I will try not to criticize something just because I don't like the character (and to admit that I have a bias for or against a character when I know that I do). That does not mean I don't respect opposite opinions - in fact, the debate is what makes it fun. If everyone agreed about everything there would be little more to be said.

I feel that I have good reasons for taking exception to Gambit or to Tara and that I'm entitled to those opinions as much as you're entitled to debate and disagree with me about them. I don't think I'm "right" per se - but I try to base what I say in an understanding/interpretation of the show. I don't think you're wrong to like Gambit or Tara or to argue with me if I criticize them. But I also don't want to be told that I'm not allowed to criticize them.

I wasn't around in 2001 - I wasn't even particularly aware of The Avengers in 2001. I'm sorry that Tara and Gambit caught hell back then or that anyone was made to feel that there was something wrong with liking those characters or time period - but does that mean that they're off-limits to critique now? While Steed or Mrs. Peel can be openly criticized, diminished, or dismissed without debate (or, for that matter, Venus Smith, who seems to be the one the everyone hates)? Part of embracing all aspects of the show has to be space for differing opinions across the series - which means that there will be those who prefer Gambit to Steed, Tara to Mrs. Peel, TNA to the original series, and those who disagree with that._________________"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

It's all a matter of taste - some people like Gambit, some people like Tara, there's even a rumour that someone somewhere likes the movie. Holding an opinion that they're wrong to like those things isn't valid, because they're not objectively "bad" things to like. It's just that we have different preferences.

No-one can write an objective thesis and be taken seriously on why Gambit or Tara don't work as characters (or Emma or Cathy), because all of them were hugely popular with one section of audiences or another and the shows (both TNA and original) were a great success.

They may not work for you, just as some characters don't work for me - in this show and others. But that's entirely different and completely subjective.

No-one's "right" or "wrong" with these likes and dislikes.

You're correct that no character (or plot or episode) should be immune from critique. So I hope we'll all keep playing the ball and not the person ._________________Last watched: The Man in the Mirror.

It's all a matter of taste - some people like Gambit, some people like Tara, there's even a rumour that someone somewhere likes the movie. Holding an opinion that they're wrong to like those things isn't valid, because they're not objectively "bad" things to like. It's just that we have different preferences.

No-one can write a thesis on why Gambit or Tara don't work as characters (or Emma or Cathy), because all of them were hugely popular with one section of audiences or another and the shows (both TNA and original) were a great success.

Well, you could write a thesis on why Gambit or Tara or any of them didn't work as characters - you could interpret the show through feminism, through queer theory, through psychoanalytic reading, historical/cultural interpretation, or simply provide a close reading of episodes demonstrating how you conceptualize and interpret the different characters, motivations, etc. Popularity does not have anything to do with individual opinion or individual interpretation, and one interpretation (so long as it's based in cohesive analysis of the text) is not inherently better than another. I can likewise say that the film doesn't work, and provide an analysis which demonstrates this interpretation.

Which is where the room for debate comes in - some of it is about individual preference (e.g. I find Gambit off-putting just because I find him off-putting), but some is equally about a reading of the episode or series (here are examples of Gambit behaving badly and an analysis of why this creates a lack of sympathy for his character). However, I cannot say that you're wrong for liking Gambit or Tara, any more than you can say I'm wrong for not liking them.

All I'm saying is that it tilts both ways, in any forum._________________"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

It's all a matter of taste - some people like Gambit, some people like Tara, there's even a rumour that someone somewhere likes the movie. Holding an opinion that they're wrong to like those things isn't valid, because they're not objectively "bad" things to like. It's just that we have different preferences.

No-one can write a thesis on why Gambit or Tara don't work as characters (or Emma or Cathy), because all of them were hugely popular with one section of audiences or another and the shows (both TNA and original) were a great success.

Well, you could write a thesis on why Gambit or Tara or any of them didn't work as characters - you could interpret the show through feminism, through queer theory, through psychoanalytic reading, historical/cultural interpretation, or simply provide a close reading of episodes demonstrating how you conceptualize and interpret the different characters, motivations, etc.

Yes, you can do that - subjectively. Any "reading" is subjective.

This is art, not science - you can never objectively prove that Gambit (say) is a worse character than Emma, any more than I can prove that Cathy is a better one.

Like I said - it's a matter of subjectivity, of taste, of likes and dislikes. We can respect each other's tastes without trashing them for liking Gambit with some argument that he's objectively inferior (not that I'm suggesting you wanted to do so, just that that is how it comes across).

I trust that we are using the terms "subjective" and "objective" in the same way?_________________Last watched: The Man in the Mirror.

But this is art, not science - you can never objectively prove that Gambit (say) is a worse character than Emma, any more than I can prove that Cathy is a better one.

Like I said - it's a matter of subjectivity, of taste, of likes and dislikes. We can respect each other's tastes without trashing them for liking Gambit with some argument that he's objectively inferior (not that I'm suggesting you wanted to do so, just that that is how it comes across).

I trust that we are using the terms "subjective" and "objective" in the same way?

I didn't say that it was an objective reading - but both readings are valid (again, if based in analysis and not "I don't like him because I don't like him.")

I'm sorry, but I never tried to say that anyone was wrong for liking Gambit - simply that I disagreed with the interpretations of the episodes. I was trying to show (mostly) why I dislike the character, which is not merely about "this is my preference" but that actually has basis in the way that I view and interpret the show and the character. This is not the only interpretation (obviously), but it is a valid interpretation. I never once said that anyone was foolish or stupid or wrong for liking Gambit. I never said he was objectively inferior (I never used "objective" at all - it becomes very hard to constantly say "I think" in a discussion) - I said that my view of him was that he was not as overwhelmingly positive a character as he was being made out to be. That is my reading of the character, and there is plenty of room for disagreement. But both readings are valid, one is not more correct than the other, and none of it has anything to do with someone being wrong about a like or a dislike (I did say that I thought the reading of Obsession was wrong because I disagree with it and find some of the reasoning specious - but that is still a subjective statement, and it does not criticize anyone's likes or dislikes)._________________"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

To summarise: Everyone's opinion is valid. The whole show is open to critique. I don't hate any of the characters. I am not out to character assassinate Steed. I was arguing Gambit's side, and countering your points with my own. That's all._________________Last Watched:Who Was That Man I Saw You With?

To summarise: Everyone's opinion is valid. The whole show is open to critique. I don't hate any of the characters. I am not out to character assassinate Steed. I was arguing Gambit's side, and countering your points with my own. That's all.

Yep, I understood that - and there was also a lot of criticism being tossed at Steed, which I likewise countered. I'm feeling just a little bit like I was wrong to do that or something._________________"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Why? As we all agree, there are no rights and wrongs about opinions. Let's continue to say what we like and don't like - no-one's being disparaged for having feelings or tastes that don't accord with other fans' views, that's what I like about this forum ._________________Last watched: The Man in the Mirror.

It was just my impression that due to the amount of hate Gambit/Tara have taken over the years, it is now anathema to criticize them._________________"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."